narcissistic

Enola 2022-01-03 08:01:40

The final monologue saved Manke's personal image, otherwise this piece would be a gorgeous empty account with numerous clues. The great thing about "Citizen Kane" in film history is that it is the first film with no answer and no chronological sequence. Each flashback is a separate piece to build a Kane that cannot be coherent with before and after, memory. The multi-layered conflict created Kane's most dazzling image of Shakespeare. If Fincher understood "Citizen Kane", he would not use trivial but time-coherent flashbacks to constantly superfluously complete a character who has been seen through from the outside to the inside from the beginning of the film. Using such a cumbersome narrative technique to portray Mank, who pioneered the innovation of narrative methods in film history (if "Citizen Kane" is really attributed to him), is not considered a kind of unconscious clumsiness caused by limited level. The conclusion is that a creator who loves his character does not mean that he agrees with his behavior, viewpoints and personality. Writing a character in a complimentary tone will definitely be hopelessly abducted. The right example is really under the nose of Vinci in the film: "Citizen Kane", which is mentioned repeatedly by all the characters.

Kasey 2022-03-27 09:01:12

The intersection of the two lines is too powerful, and when Manke realizes that Orson Welles in front of him and his citizen Kane are one, he tells himself that he can no longer be the monkey in the hands of the wandering entertainer.